Follow the Money

Part 4 of 5

U.S. Policy in Colombia: The Money Trail

Economically, geographically, and politically important, Colombia has been and continues to be the focus of U.S. policy in the Southern hemisphere. The U.S. Department of State reports that the U.S. represents the largest source of foreign direct investment in Colombia, and last year Colombia was the fifth largest export market in the Western Hemisphere for U.S. goods. The country has natural resources of interest to the U.S., including modest stores of petroleum and natural gas and represents one of the more stable economies in its region.1

Current U.S. foreign policy continues to focus on the war on drugs and assisting the Colombian government's counter-insurgency efforts. Since 2000, the U.S. has spent close to $3 billion in
Colombia, of which 75% was directed towards military and policy assistance.2 For fiscal year 2007, the Congressional Budget and Justification for Foreign Operations listed a request of $78 million for foreign military training (FMT) in Colombia, and $1.68 million for International Military Education and Training, the part of their work that encompasses the “human rights” part of military work.3 The Center for International Policy reports these figures at $90 million and $1.68 million, respectively.4 However, these two figures represent a very small part of the total military spending package for Colombia. For FY07, International Narcotics Control was projected at $366.55 million, and “Section 1033” Defense Department counter-narcotics programs were projected at $122 million. When all budget lines are added, the total is $584.44 million.5 Comparatively, in 2004 USAID spent an estimated additional $122 million in humanitarian aid directed to Colombia through non-governmental programs.6

The amount of money directed at counter-narcotics and other military programs in Colombia—coupled with the country's human rights record—has not escaped the scrutiny of Congress. The Leahy Provision prohibits military aid from being sent to foreign military units accused of human rights violations until reports show redress of grievances to the satisfaction of Congress.7 Congress has gone so far as to include specific human rights provisions specific to Colombia when funding for military operations for that country were increased. Under the Leahy Provision, funds have been withheld from Colombia in the past, but the executive branch has the power to sign a waiver to override Congress. One such instance of the use of a waiver for Colombia occurred in 2000 by then-President Clinton. Human Rights Watch contends that by signing the waiver the White House “sent a message to Colombia's leaders that overshadowed any other related to human rights...that as long as the Colombian military cooperated with the U.S. anti-drug strategy, American officials would waive human rights conditions and skirt their own human rights laws.”8

International foreign policy, and with it military spending, are not immune from domestic politicking and, in an age of globalization, nor should it be. In addition to the power of the purse Congress has through the Leahy Provision and other measures, a current bill before Congress would move to have the U.S. take an active role in ending the use of child soldiers. Senate Bill 1175, the 'Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007' a bi-partisan bill presented in April of this year, states that Congress believes “that the United States Government should support and, where practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end this abuse of human rights...expand ongoing services to rehabilitate child soldiers...work with the international community...on efforts to bring to justice rebel organizations that kidnap children for use as child soldiers, such as the FARC.”9 In addition the bill calls on State and Defense to coordinate on programs to end the use of child soldiers and that no military funding or training be made available to countries known by the Department of State or Defense to use child soldiers. Many of the provisions in the bill echo the language of the Leahy Provision, but the bill notably requires that foreign officers of the State Department be trained on matters pertaining to child soldiers.

1United States Department of State, “Background Note: Colombia,” http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35754.htm. Last accessed July 1, 2007.
2 Sweig, Julia E, “Challenges for U.S. Policy Toward Colombia: Is Plan Colombia Working—the Regional Dimensions?”, Testimony to U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 29, 2003, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.orf/publication/6511/challenges_for_US_policy_toward_colombia.html. Last accessed June 22, 2007.
3United States Department of State, FY07 Congressional Budget and Justification for Foreign Operations, www.state.gov/documents/organization/60656.pdf. Last accessed June 25, 2007.
4Center for International Policy, “Just the Facts: A civilian's guide to U.S. defense and security assistance to Latin America and the Carribean,” www.ciponline.org/facts/co.htm, June 25, 2007
5Center for International Policy, “Just the Facts: A civilian's guide to U.S. defense and security assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean,” www.ciponline.org/facts/co.htm
6United States Agency for International Development, “Colombia: Overview,” http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/country/colombia/. Last accessed June 30, 2007.
7 Human Rights Watch, “Sixth Division,” hrw.org/reports/2001/colombia/6theng.pdf. Last accessed June 26, 2007, 4
8Ibid
9 United States Senate, “S.1175, Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007,” The Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110K3DOWe,. Last accessed May 30, 2007.